Pre-empting FOCA?
posted at 1:22 pm on November 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Bush administration has decided to push last-minute rule changes in the lame-duck period that would strengthen protections for health providers with religious objections to abortion and contraception. Objections have come from within the administration itself and from states and providers over the new rules, which they claim greatly overreach already-existing protections and obliterate compromises reached on these issues. It appears that President Bush has decided to pre-empt the Freedom of Choice Act as his last major domestic effort:
A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.
The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
EEOC officials object to the new rules, as did the state of Connecticut, claiming that they are both unnecessary and too complicated. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits discrimination based on religion, and the new rules will further confuse employers as to the definition of undue hardship, the point at which employers can demand employees to follow procedures. They also object to the sudden submission of these new rule changes, pointing out that the White House missed two of its self-imposed deadlines for new regulations.
To some extent, they may have a point. If a Muslim pharmacist refused to dispense birth control to unmarried women, for instance, I suspect he’d get a lot less sympathy than a Christian pharmacist would under similar circumstances. An owner of a pharmacy can choose not to stock those remedies, of course, but when a pharmacist works for someone else, they can’t make that choice — and if they’re the only pharmacist available to dispense medication, that would mean that pharmacy would lose customers.
However, this isn’t really about dispensing the Pill. It’s about forcing hospitals and clinics who offer OB/GYN services and accept Medicare and other federal funding to provide abortions. The Freedom of Choice Act completely federalizes the issue of abortion, making Congress the sole arbiter of restrictions — which FOCA explicitly repeals entirely. It also repeats the canard that abortion isn’t available in 87% of the country (despite which 22% of all pregnancies in the US end in abortion) and that FOCA intends to rectify that. How? The only option available would be a requirement that all OB/GYN clinics and hospitals provide abortions on request.
The Catholic Church runs almost a thousand health care facilities and treated over 90 million patients in 2007. They have already said that passage of FOCA would likely force them to close down most or all of these facilities in order to avoid being forced to provide abortions. The Bush rules attempt to prevent that from happening. The incoming Obama administration will be forced to repeal them before imposing FOCA, a not insurmountable obstacle but one which will make their intention to force OB/GYN providers to become abortionists plain.
Addendum: The Gerard Health Foundation has awarded its first-ever Life Prizes, giving $600,000 to six deserving recipients. Our friend Jill Stanek is one of the inaugural recipients.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Thank you, President Bush.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM
thus undercutting a decent argument for the pro-life crowd that it’s a states’ issue.
lorien1973 on November 19, 2008 at 1:28 PM
So, I guess it’s a state issue only when your side is winning, Ed. Seems to me this is a way to create alot of work for lawyers in states that require pharmacies to dispense the birth control and morning after pill.
And couldn’t an employee of an insurance company or claims processsing agency now say s/he has a moral objection to handling claims for reimbursement of birth control pills?
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Indeed, thank you President Bush. I am sure this will cause a firestorm, but so be it.
L
letget on November 19, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I actually don’t think that life and death issues like abortion and the death penalty should be handled at the state level. I’m sure a lot of folks here do think they should be — I may well be in the minority. I just think that a state should be able to take away a U.S. citizen’s life.
From my perspective, the advantage of arguing abortion on a state level is that it becomes a more tractable battle. Just as the gay marriage proponents have worked to move individual states over to their camp and built up their successive arguments on those victories, pro-life advocates are trying to do the same.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Do you think this would inhibit Obama at all? He doesn’t believe babies born alive from botched abortions should receive medical care…. If you can kill babies intentionally, would he blink twice before forcing people to perform abortions?
beththebaker on November 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM
whoops!
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I like it applied in a narrow sense, but I can see a lot of problems coming as a result.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM
just think that a state should not be able to take away a U.S. citizen’s life.
whoops!
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM
So why are murder and manslaughter generally state (and not federal) crimes?
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I agree, ‘Thank you, President Bush.’ Since the incoming administration wants to institute it on the federal level, it appears it has to be countermanded that way. If it passes, hopefully they’ll have their hands too full to try for a repeal.
And congratulations to Jill Stanek!
joliveroconnell on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Did I read that right?
Shouldn’t it be: If a Muslim pharmacist refused to dispense birth control to unmarried women, for instance, I suspect he’d get a lot
lessmore sympathy than a Christian pharmacist would under similar circumstances.infidel2 on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
No, but it gives him no wiggle room. He won’t be able to disguise that he is pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Aren’t Religious views and actions protected under our Constitution, even in matters of providing health care. However, abortion is not reproductive health, so his ruling calls it what it is…killing, and no health provider should be forced to take part in it.
rlwo2008 on November 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I’m an odd bird here at Hot Air — I am a life-long conservative who is opposed to the death penalty. The crimes may be on the state level, but I think that the federal government should limit the penalties.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM
This is unconstitutional but I understand the game he’s playing.
lodge on November 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM
What’s all of the hubub about? What do a few more millions, exterminated in the womb, matter?
Obama will give us Utopia – and he should be allowed to dictate who can and can’t live in it.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM
If a hospital or doctor receives money from the HHS, then it affects those businesses. If you go to a hospital or one of the other places mentioned in the article that does NOT receive funds from the HHS, then the rules don’t (or shouldn’t) apply. Our money, whether we like it or not, already funds abortions without any input from us. To me, it’s quid pro quo and I think its going to make chairman-elect MaObama to back up his rhetoric regarding FOCA.
whtabtbill on November 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
It’s a bad law.
I have no sympathy for pharmacists or doctors who obtained their license in the last thirty five years who don’t want to dispense birth control pills or refer people for abortions. They made a poor career choice, just like the Big Three, and need to be taught a lesson.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Thank you, President Bush!
JustTruth101 on November 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Sanger will be laughing at the irony of a black man further enabling her genocidal plan.
LimeyGeek on November 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I can’t more disdain for President Bush. I think I despise the man more than I even do Jimmy Carter. He has done nothing to protect free enterprise and capitalism this year–just socialist bailout after socialist bailout. All he has done is protect unwanted human fetuses and put cronies into civil service position in order to destroy as much as the environment as possible.
At least, Bill Clinton’s flaw were more personal than political.
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM
As a nurse, I refused several times to take care of women who had abortions. I also refused to assist in abortions. Not it may have caused some problems in staffing, but I wouldn’t have been able to sleep at night knowing what I had done at work.
There are plenty of people who were okay with abortions where I worked so there wasn’t a problem in finding someone. Although I was considered a nut, no one seemed to have that much of a problem with my decision.
I can see the goods and the bads of these rules. But overall, I think the goods outweigh the bads.
mjk on November 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM
P.S. The Hippocratic oath abhors abortion. So much for oaths, right?
C’mon, we need more millions exterminated in the womb. Utopia is near.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM
mjk, I applaud your conviction.
God bless you.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM
So, the point of this is to set up and early warning system for Obama’s intentions?
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Job discrimination laws are unconstitutional.
Harpoon on November 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Outstanding.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM
The difference between a mafia hitman and an abortion doctor?
Anyone? Yeah, I can’t think of a diffe…wait a second! An abortion doctor is legally killing innocents! Thank goodness no one can say that an abortion doctor is as bad as a hitman. He’s legal. He’s golden.
Doug on November 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM
RINO!!!!!!1!!!11!!1 /
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
As a nurse, I refused several times to take care of women who had abortions. I also refused to assist in abortions. Not it may have caused some problems in staffing, but I wouldn’t have been able to sleep at night knowing what I had done at work.
Mjk, so you refused to help women who had complications from abortion? Sorry, but you hugely dishonor the nursing profession IMHO.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Based on one issue? I hope you’re kidding.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Now if I understand the opposition to abortion I can’t understand why the pill is so contencious. It does not kill anything. And as not all women are practicing abstinence this is one of the best contraceptive measures.
clemycali on November 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM
All he has done is protect
unwantedhumansfetuses.‘Nuff said.
kingsjester on November 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I will be very surprised if congress bring the FOCA even up for a vote. One, it won’t get through the Senate b/c you’ll have about 8-10 dems voting against cloture, not to mention almost all Reps, even Specter and Collins. Also, Obama campaigned as a moderate, and the FOCA will be the equivalent to a molotov cocktail. The pro-choice crowd will get the judges they want–it also depends how many of the ones on The Court retire.
IR-MN on November 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Yes. Obama promised NARAL the “first” thing he would do as president was pass FOCA.
(Of course NARAL, has not heard of NRO’s Geraghty’s comment, “All of Obama’s statements come with expiration dates. All of them.”)
And this a nice little theological challenge for the likes of Biden and San Fran Nan, who have already been told to come into chat with their bishops about their garbled presentations of Catholic doctrine.
Wethal on November 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I would also love for abortion to be a state issue. I don’t think any state would criminalize it outright but maybe we could start to see some sensible restrictions that would stop the practice of abortion as birth control.
Anyway, I’m glad Bush is doing it. FOCA is a complete abomination and Bush is only trying to protect the Catholic Church from having to close their hospitals. And I do think they should close their hospitals rather than be forced to perform abortions.
I believe that life starts at conception, but I could at least live with “safe, legal, and rare”. The Dems repealed that part of their platform this year and replaced it with a demand for abortion at any point during pregnancy regardless of your ability to pay.
This is sick, everyone. Absolutely sick. No matter how mad we are, we’re not mad enough.
gippergal1984 on November 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM
The guy the mafia whacks was possibly guilty of something worth a bullet.
You don’t get more perfectly innocent than the unborn.
LimeyGeek on November 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Bullshit. Maybe, just maybe, she didn’t want to be an accessory after the fact to the extermination of a child in the womb. If you are a part of the procedure, before, during or after, you are enabling the procedure. If more nurses had her courage, maybe abortion as a maeans of birth control would come to an end.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
This would be a huge blow to our society. The Catholic church will keep their word on this. Even Obama can’t be stupid enough to let this happen. Can he?…..
gatorgirl on November 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
That’s what the sarc tag ( / ) means.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
He’s never tried to disguise it up to this point… he argued that he was not pro-infanticide (but he IS) just as he argued that he is not a socialist or marxist (he is). But an abortion advocate… he has no qualms.
beththebaker on November 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I’m for ANYTHING that brings to light just how radical Odude’s plans really are, even if it’s by one little drip at a time.
Heaven knows that’s been lacking !
pambi on November 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The “states rights” issue gets muddied when the rules apply to federally funded groups. That’s the beauty of the Federal Tax system. They take our money to use as a method of coercion as they allocate it back. Agree to our rules, or you don’t get the funding.
This is a double edged sword. In this case, I agree with the intent. But when the Obama Administration uses the power of the tax to force it’s far left policies?
Obama will simply turn the tables and make providing abortions a requirement for receiving federal “healthcare” funds.
As long as the government allocates funds these kinds of programs, it will control the recipients.
Mini14 on November 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Actually, most employers are only obligated to provide “reasonable accomodation” (to the extent it doesn’t create undue hardship) for their employees religious beliefs. So, for instance, if you were the only pharmacist on duty, your employer could probably require you to dispense the birth control bill.
See http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html for the US federal EEOC policy. Many states have similar laws.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Bless your heart; aren’t you an altruistic soul. I guess you know it’s so easy and fashionable to be pro-choice after you’ve been born of course!
IR-MN on November 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Yep… and you should see what the left has done to healthcare in CA… I left 3 years ago, at that time hospital after hospital closed down in LA county alone. And not only would the left deny that illegals were flooding the system, causing bankrupcies, the mayors declared their cities “sanctuary cities”.
Just wait til Obama implements his gov’t healthcare. Oy Vey!
beththebaker on November 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Perhaps you should go for the /s or /sarc, or maybe a hard return to make sure the / stands out.
Count to 10 on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Thank you President Bush. Anything that can be done to put a roadblock in the way of the FOCA I fully support. Anything that can be done to save one innocent child’s life is well worth the fight against the FOCA!!
Ozark_sky on November 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
If we do nothing, the religion of killing babies will become even more entrenched than ever. We are sacrificing children to the Spirit of the Age. Not unlike the Canaanites whom God told the Israelites to wipe out. They were sacrificing their children to THEIR god. Ann Coulter has it right in Godless — which I think is the best book she ever wrote (but they’re all good!) Liberals hate the God of the Bible and as a result they accept all kinds of insanity in the name of the god of this Age.
We are watching this take place before our eyes. We’d better stand together or surely we will fall separately… But God …..
Christian Conservative on November 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I appreciate your point. Gaining some ground in limiting abortions is certainly worthwhile and politically practical, even if it means delaying a push on completely eliminating them.
I do differ with you on your comment about the Democrat party platform, however. Like you, I believe life begins at conception. It’s supported by what I learned as a scientist (my Ph.D. is in developmental biology) and what I was taught as a child. Therefore, I have a very hard-line stance on abortion, including no abortions in the case of rape, incest, genetic defect, etc. It’s not the fetus’ fault if s/he is the product of rape or incest.
However, if I were a person who thought that an embryo was not a human being, I would be for abortion on demand. I suppose I might wind myself into some sort of intellectual gymnastics about neural development that might lead me to assign a gestation point beyond which I would not support abortion (and I would certainly never support “live birth” abortions), but in general once you accept the (delusional) idea that embryos and fetuses are not human, why not abort them at will?
I have never understood a position where abortion is somehow “undesirable” but permissible (for any reasons other than the life of the mother). If the embryo and/or fetus is not human, why all the angst over aborting it?
At least their abortion on demand stance has some sort of logical consistency.
Perhaps some day through education and scientific advances (that push the viability barriers further back in gestation) we can convince people who support abortion that fetuses and embryos are human and they will re-think their position.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
phew! Sorry I misinterpreted that / as a typo.
cheers.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I personally do not like the idea of the federal government making these choices. It should interfere as little as possible in people’s lives, leaving most decisions in the hands of the state. At least, that’s what I thought “small government” meant for conservatives. This action again goes on to prove why we have such an unpopular president, who bludgeoned McCain’s chances out of the park.
Cheers,
The Family Guy.
peter_griffin on November 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM
If you’re OK with the government requiring unwilling participation in the killing of unwanted babies, how far down that bloody road is it to government requiring the killing of wanted babies, for whatever reason? Is it really that much of a logical leap?
It’s one thing to be a fool. It’s much worse to be a blind fool.
SKYFOX on November 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Mjk, so you refused to help women who had complications from abortion? Sorry, but you hugely dishonor the nursing profession IMHO.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Bullshit. Maybe, just maybe, she didn’t want to be an accessory after the fact to the extermination of a child in the womb. If you are a part of the procedure, before, during or after, you are enabling the procedure. If more nurses had her courage, maybe abortion as a maeans of birth control would come to an end.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
–B.S. to you back, cowboys. I can find nothing in Catholic literature that says that it’s immoral or equivalent to involvement in an abortion to provide health care service after the fact.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM
This has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is a state or federal issue. It has to do with forcing someone to perform an abortion. Obviously the Catholic church is not going to do that and neither are a lot of other institutions. However, there will still be abortion providers out there.
Terrye on November 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
gippergal:
There are still prolife Democrats. My Congressman Brad Ellsworth is blue dog Democrat and he is pro life.
Terrye on November 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
You’re right on that one — I suppose I am hoping that making it a state issue will force them to defend themselves. I mean I think we all know that abortion is the taking of a human life.
The only pro choice commentator I’ve ever seen willing to admit the ethical weakness of her position is Camille Paglia.
gippergal1984 on November 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
This moral objection needs to be worded very narrowly to avoid legal challenges.
I guess I’m a very rare pro-lifer on HA: If our best efforts cannot stop abortions, at least they mostly kill prospective democrats. They assign a value to what someone like them is worth, and won’t be persuaded to a different view.
Sad, but there are limits to what we can do.
Right_of_Attila on November 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Terrye on November 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Oh, definitely. The official party platform, ratified at the convention, is what changed. I don’t know how the makeup of the new Congress has changed and become more radical.
But to a member, sure. I’m sure a lot of the Blue Dogs are pro life. And some Repubs are pro choice.
gippergal1984 on November 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM
And that is the main reason the federal government should not be involved in any of this. If we limit the federal government to the constitution, you eliminate all these problems(at the federal level). I remember when the federal government told states they had to have a maximum speed limit of 55 and they wouldn’t get any federal highway funds. Same with the drinking age of 21.
The federal government holds states hostage with money all the time. We need to get back to federalism to save the Republic.
Corsair on November 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM
As a scientist, I am really hopeful that the “viability” part of Roe v Wade will lead to its demise. We have viable deliveries earlier and earlier… and we have viability pre-implantation. It’s just a matter of time until science and technology remove the viability barrier.
Ironically, gay men who want to have children without involving women surrogates may help us get there more quickly.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM
There are also pro-choice Republicans. This issue cuts across party lines, unfortunately.
Cheers,
The Family Guy.
peter_griffin on November 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
So again, it bears repeating:
Bush ends his term preventing murders.
Clinton ends his term pardoning murderers.
BKennedy on November 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I just don’t see how anyone whos informed can deny it.
Oh, i guess that’s why the abortion lobby fights informed consent laws and the like.
Sick. So sick. Special corner of hell reserved for these people.
gippergal1984 on November 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Right of Attila:
I doubt very much that we will ever stop abortions entirely. My point is that a lot of the clinics and hospitals in this country are in fact private or they are owned and operated by churches like the Catholic Church and these people can not be forced to do abortions. They will shut down first. And where does that leave the patients?
Terrye on November 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM
A pastor in Sweden just went to jail for preaching that text (which I love) under hate crimes legislation.
The battle is on ALL SIDES. And, lest we think we fight for just our own selves, we are still a moral beacon for the world…we are still relatively free and other people listen to our preaching and long for our freedoms here. We fight for them.
Mommypundit on November 19, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is intended. I am trying to understand the strict federalist position. I’m not a constitutional scholar and, frankly, I would rather err on the side of preserving life, even if it fails a strict interpretation of the federalism.
Given those caveats… Isn’t the right to life something established at the federal level? Why should a state be allowed to take that away? Unlike other rights, there’s no turning back once it’s gone. That’s why I think abortion and the death penalty are ultimately federal issues. I suppose, based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment you could argue that the death penalty is a state issue. But I don’t see how abortion is.
If as gipper says most pro-choicers accept that the fetus is a human life, in what way is the due process standard met when abortion ends that life?
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Another thing:
I agree that this is sweeping legislation. I hate that we have become this…but…FOCA would abolish state sovereignty ANYWAY. Sometimes a top-down declaration is good if it AT LEAST exposes lawlessness (Obama and FOCA) for what it is. He has been explicit on the area of abortion. Clearly. But, never on a truly national scale. Now he will have to be. And we will see it.
Even moderately pro choice folk would approve of a doctor refusing to abort on moral grounds, I would hope. It isn’t like there aren’t a lot of money hungry docs who WILL kill someone’s baby, anyway.
Mommypundit on November 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I forget that some new posters might not be up on some of the inside stuff. But I still want it to be fairly subtle.
How’s this?
You suck.
/
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM
What the hell makes you think that what YOU believe is right or wrong has anything to do with what mjk believes is right or wrong? mjk refused to be a part of any procedure involving abortion. That has everything to do with HER beliefs, and nothing to do with YOUR beliefs.
Furthemore, I saw nothing in mjk’s post that had anything to do with Catholicism.
By YOUR logic, it would appear that YOU wouldn’t have a problem with placing death camp prisoners into the crematoriums, for the reason that YOU didn’t have any direct link to their deaths.
Like I said, if YOU are a part of the abortion process, either before, during or after, then YOU have embraced the abortion process. mjk refused to be a part of that process. That is her prerogative, and it was not for YOU to judge.
If more nurses would stand on THEIR convictions [not YOURS] maybe abortion as a means of birth control would vanish.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Thinking first ??
Rare ??
pambi on November 19, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Mjk can refuse to participate in an abortion under the applicable state “conscience” laws. But, as far as I can tell, none of those laws as now written–or the model “conscience” law–allow her to refuse to provide post-abortion health care services. She may have violated state law and her license.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM
There is such a shortage of nurses I think they have the upper hand. If every one who refuses to participate in an abortion is fired, the health care industry would not be able to replace them.
I’m glad Pres. Bush is doing this. For those who say that Christians should leave their faith out of politics, this subject shows why we can’t. Those who believe that abortion is the taking of a human life should not be forced to participate. The secularists would demand that they should be.
Rose on November 19, 2008 at 3:23 PM
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Post-abortion health care services are still related to abortion. The woman wouldn’t be there if she hadn’t decided to kill her child. If mjk wants to refuse care she can. She may run the risk of being fired but it is up to her. That’s what this whole issue is about. You can’t force people to provide abortions. Either they will shut down, or get fired, or go to jail if it comes to that.
theotherKate on November 19, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Whoa, that opens up a huge can of worms. Just a couple of scenarios that come to mind:
- I’m a Jehova’s Witness. I have a religious conviction that blood transfusions are evil. I am a nurse in a hospital. I am instructed by a doctor to fetch three units of blood for an accident victim. I refuse and instead pray that God spare the victim’s life despite him having lost seven pints of blood. I can’t be disciplined?
- I’m a secular humanist nurse. I have a strong moral conviction that there are fates worse than death and lives not worth living. So when the 94-year-old Mr. Jones, who has terminal cancer causing terrible pain, and who has repeatedly asked us to help him die, goes into cardiac arrest, and the attending physician holds the two paddles of the defibrillator over Mr. Jones’s chest and instructs me to charge the machine, I refuse. Mr. Jones dies. I can’t be disciplined?
Or what about the racist doctor who thinks it’s immoral to let blacks into a medical facility used by whites? How do you feel about the Muslim surgeon who says it’s against his religion to treat women because women should only be treated by other women as Allah ordered?
Trust me, if this regulation becomes law, all these weirdos will start coming out of the woodwork. You don’t want to go down that road.
factoid on November 19, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Abortion is elective unless the mother’s life is in danger. I don’t know anyone who is against an abortion if the mother is in danger of dying. Elective surgery is not the same as life saving procedures.
Rose on November 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Workplaces make all sorts of accommodations to employees based on religion, now, including the U.S. military. I don’t see how this opens the floodgates any more than the Americans with Disabilities Act did. I’ve been in research labs where entire benches had to be remodeled to accommodate someone with a disability. The accommodations we’re talking about here are primarily scheduling issues. Pretty minor stuff.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I can see your point on abortion possibly being a federal issue, and have somewhat changed my position on it myself, but to change bad law at a federal level is very difficult to do. You have much more say(in general) in your local or state government than you do in the federal government. Several states have passed laws limiting abortion that you could never get at the federal level.
The biggest reason for federalism(states rights) is that if you have bad governance, you only destroy one state (see California) (California will come back when they discover that socialism doesn’t work and make the necessary changes). When you have all the power and control in one place, you can bring down the whole country.
The great thing about this is that if your state sucks, you can move to another and still be in the greatest country around. But when the Democrats finish taking the whole country down the socialist path you have no place to go. As an aside – To all socialists in this country. If you want to live in a socialist country, you have dozens of failed socialist utopias you can move to. Those of us that choose freedom and liberty don’t have anywhere else to go, so please leave our country alone.
Corsair on November 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Because the supreme court hasn’t said they fall under the constitutional guarantee of a right to privacy.
kcewa on November 19, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Mjk (and OSU Cowboys who is still injured by the crushing given his team by Texas Tech, just like the Sooners will be on Saturday) wants Mjk to be able to refuse to provide post-abortive care without her being able to be fired. I would have no problem with her refusing to do this if she could be fired for doing this (which I think is the current situation in almost all states). BTW, I think the regulation that Bush may sign won’t protext Mjk because that wouldn’t be performing or assisting to perorm abortions.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Cool. Hey, blogging “works”! I changed my position about the death penalty (I concede it is probably a state issue, even though I think it’s a bad idea) through the process of researching the constitutional issues (and reminding myself about the 14th Amendment) while posing my question to you.
Imagine that! :-)
Anyway, I used to be really against resorting to constitutional amendments, but I have concluded that we really need one for abortion.
Cheers.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 3:49 PM
No. They are state laws because criminal law is generally handled at the state level. The trend to create federal criminal law is relatively recent and somewhat limited. You don’t, for instance, have a federal laws for illegal parking.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:50 PM
lorien1973 said:
Violently killing innocent baby boys and girls is NOT a “state’s rights issue” just as slavery is NOT a state’s rights issue and just as rape is NOT a state’s rights issue.
The only people that I routinely hear claiming that abortion is a “state’s rights issue” are fake Republican candidates seeking to placate pro-lifers so they can get their vote.
Its false. Its vile. Its in no way defensible to claim that killing innocent and defenseless babies is something that should be ruled on state by state.
TheMightyQuinn on November 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I don’t think she should be fired either for refusing to kill a child, but I live in the real world. Just remember that it’s a small step from telling someone that that have to participate in murder and then passing a law that if they don’t participate they will go to jail for violating some sort of “patient care” code. Orwellien, isn’t it? “Ethisists” who write about the elderly having a duty to die are praised, and those who would protect the unborn are villified.
theotherKate on November 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM
They scream “get the government off my body” but what they really mean is “don’t make me think about the dire consquences of my actions.”
gippergal1984 on November 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:50 PM
You sure about that? With federal laws on how to wrap shrimp, you never know! :)
theotherKate on November 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM
We may be talking at cross-purposes. I was decoupling the crimes from the punishments. My reasoning was that the right to life was guaranteed at the federal level, so someone might be convicted of a crime as defined by a state, but not receive the ultimate punishment.
Having said that, upon re-reading the 14th amendment, I’ve come around to the notion that, since the due process requirement is met, states may apply the death penalty.
However, I think there is no due process for the fetus in the case of abortion. (See my exchange with Corsair.)
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Kate, I have no problem with her not participating in an abortion. I have real problems with her refusing to provide post-abortion care.
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Yup. Sad really.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 3:57 PM
jim m on November 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I think it’s part and parcel unless the woman has a life-or death emergency afterwards like bleeding out, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
theotherKate on November 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM
If you own a pharmacy you should dispense the pill if it’s legal. If you object, get out of the business.
mylegsareswollen on November 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM
mylegsareswollen on November 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Why? Having the Pill is not a civil right. There are other pharmacies. If they don’t stock it and get protested or go out of business, it’s up to them.
theotherKate on November 19, 2008 at 4:03 PM
mjk did not leave the patient alone to die, as Obama supports for abortion survivors. The original post says “There are plenty of people who were okay with abortions where I worked so there wasn’t a problem in finding someone.”
Agree or not with the decision, but the patient received care anyway.
Mini14 on November 19, 2008 at 4:04 PM
My point was that abortion became a federal issue when the supreme court ruled on Roe v. Wade.
kcewa on November 19, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Thank you President Bush. Thank God it wasnt above your paygrade.
canditaylor68 on November 19, 2008 at 4:15 PM
So true.
kcewa on November 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Good point.
Yet another reason to fight nationalized medicine.
Y-not on November 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »